The passage of the Beason-Hammon Act in Alabama is aimed at the key to ridding this country of illegals and all the problems they bring: illegal employment in the US. It sanctions employers who "reasonably should have known" they were hiring an illegal. This goes a long way, but the main problem in this country with dealing with scofflaw employers is something that really gutted the 1986 federal immigration act - a section that said employers have an affirmative duty to determine whether employees were entitled to work in the US was taken out. That gave them in effect a green light to hire anyone they wanted. This needs to be put back into law.

The alabama act follows the USSC decision Chamber of Commerce v. Whiting, which held that the Legal Arizona Workers Act that provides for the suspension and/or revocation of the business licenses of Arizona employers who knowingly or intentionally employ unauthorized aliens is not expressly preempted by the federal Immigration Reform and Control Act, the main device used by the obamanistas to try to overturn the arizona law. That was a tremendous victory for those fighting the invasion of this country promoted by leftwingers to ensure their permanent political power.

Tide turning against the illegal aliens and their leftwing supporters?

Click to expand...

In Alabama? Youve got to be kidding; this reactionary state is hardly representative. Youre also in error with regard to leftwing support of illegal immigration. Youre confused in that they support case law and the Constitution on the issue, where illegal aliens are entitled to basic due process rights.

For example:

It also makes it illegal for anyone to knowingly rent housing to illegal immigrants and bans any illegal immigrant from enrolling in any public college after high school.

Click to expand...

The former has already been struck down as un-Constitutional:

In his decision, Munley said all people must be protected regardless of their legality.

"The genius of our Constitution is that it provides rights even to those who evoke the least sympathy from the general public," he wrote. "Hazleton, in its zeal to control the presence of a group deemed undesirable, violated the rights of such people, as well as others within the community."

In his decision, Munley said all people must be protected regardless of their legality.

"The genius of our Constitution is that it provides rights even to those who evoke the least sympathy from the general public," he wrote. "Hazleton, in its zeal to control the presence of a group deemed undesirable, violated the rights of such people, as well as others within the community."

In reviewing the case, the 3rd Circuit affirmed Judge Munley's ruling that both laws were unconstitutional and raised questions whether Hazleton was simply naive in treading onto areas governed by federal law, or making a calculating move at the direction of Mr. Barletta to attack immigration law.

"Whether Hazleton inadvertently stumbled into this exclusively federal domain, or decided to defiantly barge in, it is clear that it has attempted to usurp authority that the Constitution has placed beyond the vicissitudes of local governments," the court said.

The law doesnt say schools should turn away students who cant provide documentationthat would be in blatant violation of the 1982 Supreme Court ruling Plyler v. Doe, which struck down a Texas law that forbade public money going to the education of illegal immigrants. In the Plyler case, the court ruled that fashioning laws to punish children violated the 14th Amendment, which guarantees equal protection under the law.

The court also argued that denying children education would create a permanent subclass of illiterates in America, adding to welfare costs and crime. (The laws creators say theyve crafted the schools provision with the strictures of Plyler v. Doe in mind, and they think it will pass constitutional muster. Justice Department lawyers recently warned school districts in a letter that any laws that may discourage children from enrolling violates Plyler, in their opinion.)

Tide turning against the illegal aliens and their leftwing supporters?

Click to expand...

In Alabama? Youve got to be kidding; this reactionary state is hardly representative.

Click to expand...

They represent one in a number of states that has passed laws similar to arizona's - and they're all "reactionary" because they don't want to end up like arizona, overrun by illegals? Riiiiiiiiiight.

Youre also in error with regard to leftwing support of illegal immigration.

Click to expand...

No I'm not - leftwingers, including obama, try to overturn every effort to stop the invasion, because they see them as the democrat voters of the future.

Youre confused in that they support case law and the Constitution on the issue, where illegal aliens are entitled to basic due process rights.

Click to expand...

Illegally working in this country, let alone illegally invading this country, has absolutel NOTHING to do with rights.

As for the aspect of the law concerning school:

The law doesnt say schools should turn away students who cant provide documentationthat would be in blatant violation of the 1982 Supreme Court ruling Plyler v. Doe, which struck down a Texas law that forbade public money going to the education of illegal immigrants. In the Plyler case, the court ruled that fashioning laws to punish children violated the 14th Amendment, which guarantees equal protection under the law.

Click to expand...

That is one of the worst decisions of the USSC in recent history, and needs to be overturned.

The court also argued that denying children education would create a permanent subclass of illiterates in America, adding to welfare costs and crime.

Click to expand...

That claim was beyond stupid. It assumes that the US will do nothing to enforce its borders, allowing in 20 million invaders, a situation that would be tolerated by no other country on earth, and is the root of all the problems.

Useful Searches

About USMessageBoard.com

USMessageBoard.com was founded in 2003 with the intent of allowing all voices to be heard. With a wildly diverse community from all sides of the political spectrum, USMessageBoard.com continues to build on that tradition. We welcome everyone despite political and/or religious beliefs, and we continue to encourage the right to free speech.

Come on in and join the discussion. Thank you for stopping by USMessageBoard.com!